Bangladesh - A failure of politics ?

[A.V.]

The opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party did all of us something of a favour on Thursday. It moved away, ever so slightly, from its 12-hour hartal and permitted the shutdown to come to an end after eleven hours. Now, that is not quite part of the tradition of political agitation in Bangladesh.
We have systematically been led to believe -- and indeed have been convinced over the years -- that there is either a full scale hartal of six or twelve hours, depending on how strongly the party calling it feels about the situation, or there is no hartal at all. But now the BNP has let us in on the thought that hartals can on certain occasions be shortened, even if only for an hour. You could say that a certain liberalisation has come into the hartal tradition. Perhaps this unprecedented act will in course of time become a precedent for other parties to follow in the times before us.
On a deeper analysis, though, we as a people -- and this despite the diversity of our individual and collective political beliefs -- are properly mystified by the reasons trotted out to explain this slicing away of an hour from what had been scheduled to be a 12-hour shutdown across the country. There was the matter of a diplomatic reception organised by an influential foreign mission in Bangladesh. And then there was the excitement of a cultural programme where a prominent visitor from abroad was expected to fly in and regale us with his ghazals.


A failure of politics

 

[Ray]

Bangladesh as a nation has to mature.

Right now, the attitude of the political parties is rather quixotic.

The people also are very versatile and do not apparently stick to one profession.

I met on another forum a self acclaimed Barrister, who is a one book wonder and now a cloth merchant or something!!

 

[Ray]

Bangladesh should feel sought after
Shah Husain Imam

A former Indian petroleum minister, Moni Shankar Aiyar, on a visit to Dhaka had said, wat is in India's interest, more than Bangladesh's that New Delhi needed Dhaka's friendship. This may not be an exact reproduction of his words, but that is the essence of what he wanted to convey.

He had come on an agenda of finalising a Myanmar-Bangladesh-India gas pipeline deal. The then BNP government linking it to trade imbalance and transit to Nepal, an originally perceived purposeful visit turned out a "goodwill" one.

What Aiyar said with his characteristic eloquence and candour half a decade ago, sounds prescient by hindsight, even prophetic. The underlying significance of Aiyar's statement had to do with India's transit, anti-insurgency and port use agenda, topped up by a geopolitical concern.

The impression in Bangladesh is that India has got much more than what it gave to Bangladesh through Manmohan's recent visit. The main bone of contention doesn't at the moment centre on the aborted Teesta deal. In fact, the focus has swung on certain Articles of the Framework Agreement on Cooperation for Development between Governments of India and Bangladesh.

Critics have principally taken issue with Articles 9 and 12. The articles to my mind are open-ended and not as set in stone as is being made out to be. For instance, Article 9 states they "will cooperate on security issues of concern to each other." The operative words here are "of concern to each other." I would argue that they will enjoy freedom of action in security matters that are not "of concern to each other." This freedom is underpinned by the clause -- "fully respecting each other's sovereignty." So it is far from "a military pact."

Article 12 has come in for a good deal of criticism but this is assailable. It provides for termination of the agreement by mutual consent reached through an elaborate process in a joint consultative commission to be set up as the nodal implementation agency. Like in all international agreements, the provision to opt out is very much there.

Particular exception has been taken by the critics to the proviso: "Actions taken or agreements reached pursuant to the Agreement shall not be affected by its expiry or termination." Obviously, this clause is a necessary extension of the termination provision keeping in view political vagaries and eventualities in either of the two countries. If an agreement does not protect what it had achieved prior to its expiry or termination, then what it is worth? More to the point is, even during the implementation, if it is found that something is not to the benefit of one of the high contracting parties, it can invoke the option of coming out of it.

Whilst in the opposition BNP plays its anti-India card; in power, because it has to deal with India it conducts its relations with New Delhi keeping to normal diplomatic niceties. There is no reason to believe that BNP's ideological anchor has come unstuck from its previous mooring, yet its current posturing towards India shows a sign of change. It has scaled down the strident rhetoric against India. From a recriminatory banter of "an AL sell-out to India" that New Delhi couldn't have savoured, the opposition party has softened its attitude towards the neighbouring country.

It all started with Begum Khaleda Zia admonishing a party leader who spoke of calling a hartal to coincide Dr. Manmohan's visit to Dhaka. Shiv Shankar Menon, Indian security adviser called on Khaleda Zia saying Dr. Manmohan's itinerary included a tête-à-tête with Bangladesh's opposition leader. In the talks the Indian PM invited Begum Zia to visit New Delhi. This was followed by an appreciative letter from the Indian PM to Bangladesh's opposition leader. Understandably, Begum Zia's advisors are planning a trip to India ostensibly on pilgrimage to Azmeer Sharif, but with a purpose of meeting Indian leaders.

India is seeking to cultivate both parties, and that is about far-sighted, visionary leadership.

Speaking of a strategic vision and given our geopolitical circumstances, we believe, Bangladesh's simultaneous cooperative relationship with both India and China need not be mutually exclusive. In fact, pragmatism dictates Bangladesh to have a balanced relationship with both China and India as was reflected by Sheikh Hasina's first international trip to China which was followed by that to India.

There is no permanent friend or foe in international relations but only permanent national interests.

With India it is a matter of heart. That's why we are hurt by barbed wire fence along the border and the border killings. With China it's cerebral. But now that we are getting into a deeper phase of engagement with India, based on long-harboured expectations for speedy resolution of our outstanding problems with her, we would need to use the brain, too.

The writer is Associate Editor, The Daily Star.
Bangladesh should feel sought after

Much has been said on both sides of the border about the Agreements signed between India and Bangladesh.

This article clarifies some of the 'sore' points as perceived by Bangladesh.

It is of interest to know that Khaleda Zia, of the BNP, a party that is not so well inclined towards India, seems to have matured with political age.

It is now for both sides to warm up this breaking of ice and move towards greater understanding,

 

[A.V.]

Since history the smaller satellite states are made as a fight between two big players around . bangladesh by its own policies have made it this way , they need to realize what best suits them.

what suits for mr x might be cancerous for mr y . bangladesh has to rise for that the general people has to rise about these political gameplays.

 

[Ray]

And here is the bellyaching of an ex Bangladeshi bureaucrat.

Negotiating with India
Abdul Hannan

Gowher Rizvi, the prime minister's international affairs adviser, in an interview with the Daily Star, waxed eloquent over what he described as unprecedented gains by Bangladesh during the recent visit of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in resolving the outstanding disputes with India. Apparently, his appraisal is contrary to the groundswell of criticism, anger, shock and dismay about the failed outcome of the summit, expressed across a wide spectrum of public opinion.

The summit was a flop and ended not with a bang but with a humiliating whimper for Bangladesh. There was nothing new in the eleventh hour volte face by India. It is consistent with its track record of breach of trust, back-tracking and intransigence in resolving its disputes with Bangladesh. Let me briefly revisit, by way of providing intelligence to the learned adviser, the chronicle of hypocrisy, deceit and dissimulation resorted to by India in its dealings with Bangladesh.

Bangladesh has conceded to India's agenda and shopping list one after another. First India received Dhaka-Calcutta bus service followed by Agartarla-Calcutta bus service, inaugurated by the then Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee. The latest concession was to allow the use of land transport, even without a formal transit agreement, from Ashuganj to Agartala to carry heavy machinery for setting up of a power plant in Tripura. Bangladesh cooperation to meet India's security concern, particularly about long-running separatist insurgency in its northeastern states, was a major concession.

But, in return, Bangladesh has received nothing. India, far from promoting good neighbourly relation with Bangladesh, has consistently adopted a hostile attitude. India has upheld an obstructionist policy since 1974 by preventing Bangladesh from exploring for oil well within Bangladesh territory in the Bay of Bengal. India served notice of swift dispatch to four foreign companies preparing for oil exploration in the Bay of Bengal in 1974, and ever since it has shown least interest in joint survey and delineation of maritime boundary. Bangladesh was left with no other choice but to refer the matter to UN for arbitration. India has captured, by threat of force, Talpatty island near the Sundarbans and well within Bangladesh territory. The India map has renamed the island as New More Island.

India has flouted the Indira-Mujib 1974 land boundary agreement by not implementing it by exchange of adverse possessed enclaves and demarcation of 6.5 km land boundary. It has constructed 896 km long barbed wire fence along its border to stop what it alleges as infiltration from Bangladesh. The killing of innocent Bangladeshis in the border areas by BSF is a regular affair.

Indira-Mujib agreement provided for lease in perpetuity of the Tin Bigha corridor in return for handing over Berubari to India. But India dragged its feet on one pretext or another. The agreement with Manmohan for round-the-clock access through Tin Bigha is a poor substitute of the stipulated lease in perpetuity of Tin Bigha.

Prime Minister Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, under joint Indo-Bangladesh declaration in 1974, allowed a trial run of Farakka barrage on condition that India ensured water sharing of 55 thousand cusecs. In 1975, Bangladesh and India signed a water sharing agreement. India opted out of the agreement when relations between the two countries soured after the assassination of Bangabandhu. Without water from the Ganges, desertification, salinity and navigation difficulties raised a specter of economic and ecological disaster.

Bangladesh, out of desperation, sought UN intervention. The UN asked India and Bangladesh to come to a mutually satisfactory resolution of the dispute in a spirit of good neighbourliness. But it was not until 1977, during Morarji Desai's government, that a new 5-year water sharing agreement was signed. In1982, an MOU was signed for 2 years. An MOU for 3 years was signed in 1985 during the government of I.K. Gujral, under which Bangladesh was assured of 34 thousand cusec. India signed a 30-year Ganges water treaty during the government of Prime Minister Dev Gowda

In the intervening period, Bangladesh's share of water was reduced to less than 10 thousand cusecs. It is significant that Bangladesh suffered most in matters of water sharing during the rule of Congress governments in India.

The recent agreements during Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's visit are short on substance and long on rhetoric. Triumphalism is premature and misplaced as we fully know how India reneged and soft-pedaled on its commitment to the 1974 Indira-Mujib agreement. Much depends on implementation inasmuch as most of these are a repeat of the Indira-Mujib agreement of 1974.

The latest agreement is not charity, but should be seen as a ploy to get Bangladesh on board for transit facility, the last and most important item in India's shopping list. Transit to Nepal and Bhutan is of minimal importance as our volume of trade with these two countries is peanuts when compared with well over $3 billion trade imbalance with India. The threat of para-tariff apart, the duty free export of 46 Bangladesh items will not make substantial difference. Observers suspect that the Mamata factor was a stage-managed stratagem to wriggle out of the Teesta deal at the eleventh hour.

The performance of 2 advisers in matters of negotiating the deals with India, apparently sidelining the ministry of foreign affairs and other line ministries, has been widely criticised. As reported by newspapers, Manmohan Singh is replacing his adviser Shiv Shankar Menon, former Indian foreign secretary, with a political leader.

Our prime minister may likewise think of entrusting the task of future negotiations on transit and water sharing of remaining 53 rivers including Teesta to foreign ministry professionals, who are trained in the art of negotiating with foreign countries.

Alternatively, the assignment may be given to a retired seasoned and astute career diplomat, who has the experience of both serving in our Delhi Mission and in top positions in the foreign office, assisted by a core team of experts on water and transit.

Reticence and reserve are an essential preserve of diplomacy. The press and academic circles, however, were critical of the persistent optimism and exuberance of the incumbent foreign minister about the Indian conduct and what they described as her "apologetic" assessment of the success of Manmohan's visit.

It remains to be seen if Gowher Rizvi can be persuaded to abandon his futile exercise to defend the indefensible.

Abdul Hannan is a former diplomat.
Negotiating with India

It is interesting to note that poor bureaucrat is blind as a bat.

He claims that Bangladesh got nothing out of MMS' visit.

Maybe his forte is not economics or land survey. If he could count, he would realise the great concessions India has done by lifting trade tariffs especially on goods that are traditionally the backbone of Bangladesh economy.

He also forgets that in the land exchange of enclaves, the territorial gain by Bangladesh is more than that of India. More enclaves have gone Bangladesh's way.

If Transit to Nepal and Bhutan is minimal in volumes of trade, is India to boost Bangladesh's trade by manufacturing goods for them? Indeed, it for Bangladesh to prove to Nepal and Bhutan to be lucrative for trade. India can only be a facilitator by allowing transit.

Has India been reciprocated by Bangladesh for transit to the NE of India? No!

One could enumerate more concessions given by India, but then it is fashionable for some the world over to feel that they are being deprived and it is their birthright that their empty bowls be made brimming full without anything in return.

What some Bangladeshis fail to realise is that Bangladesh is not quite material in India's strategic or economic well being, while on the other hand, for Bangladesh, India is!!

 

[Ray]

Islamist rampage blamed in Bangladesh riots

Over a 100 people, including Jamaat activists, police, journalists and pedestrians were reported wounded as the protestors hurled brickbats, while police charged baton and lobbed teargas shells to contain the worst political riot unleashed by Islamists in ten years.

Islamists on Monday afternoon ran amok in the Bangladesh capital demanding release of Jamaat-e-Islami leaders detained to stand trial for war crimes.
clearpxl

Police detectives arrested several leaders including ATM Azaharul Islam, acting general secretary, publicity secretary Tasneem Alam, central working committee member Mohammad Ijjatullah and six other members.

Senior police officer Krishnapada Roy told journalists that fresh arrests of senior leaders were made at the Jamaat-e-Islami party headquarters on charges of assault on police, arson and vandalism.

Over 100 people, including Jamaat activists, police, journalists and pedestrians were reported wounded as protestors hurled brickbats, while police charged with batons and lobbed teargas shells to contain the worst political riot unleashed by Islamists in 10 years.

At least 20 vehicles, including police cars, commuter buses and motorbikes were torched in Dhaka as police fought a pitched battle with Jamaat-e-Islami activists and its student wing Islami Chattra Shibir, witnesses said.

The city center turned into a veritable battlefield in the wake of a government-opposition political standoff as rioters went berserk during countrywide street demonstrations.

Huge contingents of riot police were joined by elite anti-crime unit and para-military forces backed with water cannons and Armored Personnel Carriers to quell the bloody political strife.

Home Affairs minister Sahara Khatoon claimed the police have demonstrated utmost restrain and did not fire shot-guns to avoid any human casualty, he told TV reporters.

The planned agitation by Islamists came as they demanded the release of party chief Matiur Rahman Nizami, secretary general Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mojaheed, assistant secretaries general Mohammad Kamaruzzaman and Abdul Quader Molla and evangelist Delwar Hossain Sayedee, who were charged for crimes against humanity during the Bangladesh war of independence in 1971.

Hours before his arrest, Azaharul Islam claimed that nearly 500 activists were injured and 300 activists were arrested by police during the demonstration in the capital. About 700 people have been arrested across the country. In fact, police have launched a drive to round up the Jamaat activists across the country, he added.

By nightfall, the strife had spread into different cities of the country. News of Islamists clashes with police and arrests was being broadcast on TV news channels from various district towns.

Islamist rampage blamed in Bangladesh riots | AHN

The frustration of the Islamists who are basically those who supported Pakistan in the Liberation, Razaakar and those Biharis who Pakistan refused to repatriate. Also, there are the Born Again Muslims fed and clothed by the Saudi coffer.

They have aligned with the Opposition BNP, led by Khaleda Zia and hence the BNP is identified with these mullah morass of the worst variety wherein the find no qualms to be treacherous to the nation that feeds, clothes and educates them.

Unless these mullah inspired marauders are harnessed and put in their place, Bangladesh will go the Pakistan way.

As it is corruption and nepotism is the signature of Bangladeshi politics. The addition of the Islamist weirdo adds a new dimension that spirals the Bangladeshi politics into a unholy swamp of chaos and confusion that will only destabilise the country and halts its economic progress.